Shssssuush ros-hand over the nagging harpies and hide the sweeties.He won't know the difference.
If you took the most advanced monkey and set it down in our midst it would learn nothing except maybe a few tricks to amuse us.
On the other hand if you took the most backward primitive man from the deepest dark forests who had never seen or heard of us and set him down in our midst you could train him to be a perfectly adequate butler or a taxi-driver within a year.
Where are all the intermediate stages in this evolution from monkeys.The guys who did the cave paintings would be movie directors in no time.
What is the scientific explanation of the vast gulf between men and beasts with no intermediates?
Spendius.
....just passing...you seem to be talking sense on the sociological necessity for ID/theism and people "talking past each other".
As for your current theme which we might call "the quantum leap of human cognition" there is no necessity to assume some long evolutionary process if we apply a chaos theory type approach to the organization of cognitive systems. Such a model yields spontaneous (non-linear) reorganizations without evoking any external causal agency.
(see Progogine references e.g. )http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/481_32.html
Good explanation, fresco! I never know how to respond to spendius' posts.
spendius wrote:If you took the most advanced monkey and set it down in our midst it would learn nothing except maybe a few tricks to amuse us.
On the other hand if you took the most backward primitive man from the deepest dark forests who had never seen or heard of us and set him down in our midst you could train him to be a perfectly adequate butler or a taxi-driver within a year.
That is very funny Spendius and gets my a2k award for the day.
And it is so true. If you took the average taxi driver in these parts and transposed him into the deepest dark forest, he (my god nearly sexist there, that is he or she) would be perfectly adapted to his/her new evironment.
Steve, You get my a2k award for today. LOL
spendius wrote:wande-
You just won't have it.
ID cannot be discussed at all except sociologically and psychologically.There is no possible intellectual position on it either theologically or philosophically.
The effects of people believing it and the process by which that belief exists in people are scientifically relevant in the management of a cultural entity.
In one of the most famous books of the last century
there is this-
"My unbelief made me feel immeasurably superior to him."
Him being Harris's father who had written to him with "Biblical exhortations that sickened me with contempt for his brainless credulity."
Harris was 14 and his father was a ship's captain.
I made this precise point a few days ago.
You can reject ID as science all you want but you can't reject its unifying function in those areas where it manifests itself.The two sides simply talk past each other for ever otherwise.
But to what extent is this feeling of superiority at the back of the SD position.The states where ID is strong may need it to be and similarly for the SD states.
You have no idea whether children will benefit from either emphasis in their lessons.It is simply a prejudiced guess.What they won't benefit from is this stupid row raging round their ears which is essentially patronising nannying and betrays a lack of confidence in them which I think to be completely unjustified.
SD and ID states need those theories? I think you assume without good cause that humans require unified theories. Fine if you'd rather jam reality into analytical categories than admit that our understanding of it is a work in progress. And the theory of evolution is certainly a work in progress, contrasting the mind-numbing tidiness of ID.
Moreover, if you're going to take a pragmatic stance on ID -- that we should value it because it's useful at reconciling our various theories -- then I would take the opposite stance on the same grounds. ID is not useful. It's a recipe for complacency, for seeking easy and unverifiable answers to hard questions. That, of course, is why it's so good at unifying apparently contradictory theories. Theories based on empiricism are dirty and likely to lead to contradiction, which is exactly why what they are so useful (indispensable!). They keep us thinking and force us to ask questions about our current understanding of the world. I'll take dirty evolution over anesthetizing ID.
Am I misreading you?
fresco-
My life is,and has been,run on highly organised and well ordered principles.Chaos is a foreign language to me.
I am aware that "long" evolutionary periods are not necessary to explain cognitive leaps.When I got Jean Whiteside behind the bikeshed all those years ago I jumped six quanta of cognition in a very short space of time.
But I will check the references,for which many thanks,in the hope that even more vistas of absurdity and hilarity than I now know about will be revealed to me.
As far as I'm concerned the Big Bang my Mum and Dad engineered one Easter weekend in Albert Rd,Blackpool was the beginning of the world.
Don't Look Back except for a laugh.
Steppie-
Not so much misreading me as being seemingly unaware of my vague approach to both sides.
I probably assume that humans,in social groups,require (I would go to need) unified theories because all the human groups of any consequence have had such theories.It goes without saying that some individuals within those groups don't accept the theory that unifies them and I'll admit that these rare types often make progress possible.Often also they get killed.
Obviously it is a work in progress but whether what results is progress is another matter.
It seems to me that jamming reality into analytical categories is inescapable.The reality of this fag I'm smoking is of such fiendish complexity that if I didn't categorise it as a fag I would feel a bit daft smoking it.
I don't know whether ID is "mind-numbing" but this debate has taught me plenty.The Bible stories are certainly not mind-numbing and I think children might gain from them more than from finding out too early that they themselves consist of empty space with some strange objects they can't see,hear,feel,touch,taste or imagine floating around in it and that is assuming that "in" and "it" are analytical categories.
There is a big difference between saying that ID is mind-numbing and saying that it numbs your mind.
The latter doesn't prove the former.It is also a bit of a leap from "useful" to "indispensible".
Complacency and easy answers are,I'm afraid,an absolute necessity for large numbers of people as any night spent in front of the television appliance clearly demonstrates.People have been known to fall to pieces in the face of some kinds of knowledge.Those who can take it can also take ID in their stride and forget it when the time comes and still retain the beautiful stories and language.
It isn't a question of what you or I will take.It is a question of what is best for the kids given that most of them will spend their lives in mundane occupations and circumstances generally.
thanks ci
on re reading "wot i rote" I think it might be one of my better efforts too!
Hope all is well for you and yours in sunny silicon valley
Steppie-
We are not all that far apart.I agree with most of what you say.Particularly those bits about cans of beer,sofas,telly and this lot of headbangers.
Where our views seem to diverge is on how to keep it going and make improvements which get more difficult as we approach the ultimates.
I loved Brave New World because I thought "that seems pretty good" but the absence of art bothered me.The civilisation depicted by dear Aldous had an empty centre and I think deliberately so.The cans,sofas,TVs and laughing tackle with art is superior to without it.And I think a total SD education will eradicate art.
Hence I prefer a mix.Stir well,don't boil and serve with croutons.
Both sides are nuts.
Seeing Creation and Evolution in Grand Canyon
October 6, 2005
Seeing Creation and Evolution in Grand Canyon
By JODI WILGOREN
New York Times
(One religious; one scientific---BBB)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/science/sciencespecial2/06canyon.html?pagewanted=print
One of my favorite books about exploring the Grand Canyon by archiologists is The River That Runs Uphill by William H. Calvin of the University of Washington. It is now out of print, but you can read all of the chapters on line at:
http://williamcalvin.com/bk3/index.htm
I really enjoyed reading and learning from this book.
---BBB
I.D. assumes a specific answer to general questions-- all questions, even those not yet asked. But more troublesome is that this answer only applies to those with "souls" and relates mainly with their "salvation". Given that one only values those entities possessing the attribute of a "soul", how does this help any entitiy in the here and now, whether or not they possess such magical properties?
Simply, I.D. is merely a thinly disguised mindset that deals with the hereafter and cares little for the present and its attendant challenges (other than ideology, either theological or political, that might further advance said mindset). This, manifest in the I.D. camp's best response, seems merely the shop worn plea that distills down to: "Trust me, and have faith!" Well, this is the same argument that President Bush has used to justify his latest choice for Supreme Court Justice, Harriet Miers, because she "shares his legal philosophy". Oh? What exactly might that be? Well, the president is not a man comfortable with specifics (he is a big picture Â…delegate authority type guy), but let us hope that the Senate does not have the same aversion regarding Ms. Miers confirmation hearings.
JM
JM-
I don't think you have read the thread or,if you have,you have missed what I have said.
You have gone back to the beginning.
Are you trying to say that ID has no social function in the here and now and that SD with the handbrake off has.
The issue wouldn't be tortuously wending its way through the courts if it was a simple as you seem to think it is.
spendius,
The issue in court is a very limited one. It is restricted to the question of whether a local school board can mandate the teaching of intelligent design in science class.
wande-
Yes,I know.But won't the court want to hear the justifications and objections before deciding on the "can".
Surely the school boards "can" unless there are objections and won't any objections be based on the sort of thing this thread has been airing plus,no doubt,other things.
Correct me if I am mistaken.
You have a point, spendius. Some of the testimony at the trial has been philosophical and sociological rather than strictly legal.
wande-
I couldn't see a legal issue at all unless there were philosophical and sociological considerations in any objections.If there were legal issues per se then wouldn't the board have to seek court permission on what colour to paint the walls etc.It is a subsidarity issue by which I mean the board can do what it wants unless there are objections and then it needs a higher authority.
Is that not right?
wande-
Sorry about that.I got distracted.
I thought we couldn't double post now.
